I was noticing how variations in rates of fire for different models/calibers of guns don't seem to be modeled in the game. In reality, the difference could be quite dramatic, with a pz. IV able to get off 3-5 shots for every one by a JS II. Same thing as far as the 6 pdr Churchill vs. a Tiger. The other aspect is some of the automatic cannon used by the Germans in their armor, such as the 2cm gun in the Luchs or their armored cars. That certainly would be fun to see in action!

When it comes to INfantry,the rate fire is based on an indivual soldier.One dude may hold the trigger on a SMG for 1 sec while another dude holds it for 3 sec.I would that would make the game more realistic if for say the longer a soldier holds down the trigger the less accuracy of the weapon.Maybe in the future sean will have an option so the player can set the number of sec a soldier wil hold the trigger.1.5 sec would be the default while the computer(Enemy) would random the time for its troops.

I was really just talking about tank guns and field artillery. I think the 'standard' of troop (Raw, Reg, Elite) does have an affect on when and how they open fire. At least, I have noticed that Elite level troops wait until the enemy is pretty close before firing a volley, whereas the other types will fire individually and much sooner. Perhaps infantry ROF is other wise built in.

well there are certain bits of tank behaviour that are modeled poorly in firefight - an early t34 stopping well out of range to fire at a tiger is going to be smoking pretty soon.

it comes from as far back as 17th century naval warfare - the shorter gunned is usually the lighter and so closes as maximum speed whilst trying to not get hit, then out maneouvers the bigger foe at minimal range.

if i had 4 t34s, my tactic against a single tiger would be to close asap in valleys and other natural cover. and then get behind from both flanks simultaneously. ruddy difficult but better than being human roast!
________D-Type

Last edited by Andy on Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

The "sea and freeze" behaviour of tanks is pretty well known in Firefight.

If they see another tank or an AT gun, they will stop all movement and fire it out until one is destroyed or their LOS is restricted (as by smoke).

I had two regular Shermans use their ENTIRE ammo supply in a duel with a single Pzjgr IV yesterday. The Shermans were getting repeat hits on the vehicles front but, even though the distance was only 300m, they never got a kill. Eventually, they were both knocked out. The german SPG soon ran out of 75mm ammo also, but as I had no other AP weapons I lost.

This is probably the biggest annoyance to me in FF. I'd like to see tanks take cover or retreat a bit more readily than just completely freeze. While annoying behavior in tanks, it is completely nonsensical to have thinly armored halftracks and carriers behave the same way.

On the other hand, though, 'fixing' that might have adverse effects on balancing. After all tanks react to orders quickly, don't hesitate to get close to enemy infantry and are no subject to small arms suppression. If they didn't have that major disadvantage when facing enemy cannons the tank assault would never fail.

FF is really fun. The ONE thing that would make it much better would be some simulation of the ability of infantry to attack tanks at close range with magnetic charges, grenades, molotov cocktails. The total and absolute invincibility of tanks to infantry is the biggest problem in the game, and also not realistic at all.

Tank doctrine is all about making sure infantry support tanks so that enemy infantry doesn't get too close, which is when tanks become vulnerable.

The only thing about tanks that desperately needs fixing is the whole freeze-up-and-do-nothing phase that kicks in after a couple minutes of exchanging fire. I would at the minimum like a bit where the tank might automatically do one of its big loops or two at that point rather that just sitting there facing off for the next 20 minutes. It would be nice to also see some more variable tank and gunner behavior, similar to the raw, regular, elite infantry behaviors.

Agreed wholeheartedly on more anti-tank options for infantry. There really should be a "primary, secondary" weapon option for infantry whereas the secondary weapon might be something other than handgrenades, and would kick in if the soldier came with 10 yards or so of a tank. Most forces had some option for defeating tanks in close-in combat, which is why tanks would not go into woods or towns without close infantry support. I think by modeling maybe 2 or 3 different close-in anti-tank weapons, say "thrown" or "placed against hull" you could cover most of the bases.

All sides used grenades strapped to a can of gas or satchel charges, as well as placing anti-tank mines against hull etc.

I would imagine that not every soldier would have something like this, but nearly every squad having a soldier or two with one of these instead of regular grenades would do the trick, as would just allowing infantry to be able to damage halftracks and other open-top vehicles with regular grenades.